5 ms·

Usually, the teaching/mentoring is not free either. So you can a) hire someone who needs training and then train them, or you can b) hire someone who is produc

Usually, the teaching/mentoring is not free either. So you can a) hire someone who needs training and then train them, or you can b) hire someone who is productive since day 1. The people in a) cannot expect the same salary as b). Otherwise, there would be no point in incurring the costs of training them. Unfortunately, once you train them, someone can snatch them as people in b). You incur the loss, someone else benefits.

waiseristy 8y ago
I don't see why this rules out giving A.) developers who have now become B.) developers a raise to match their increased value
- vetinari 8y ago
  Because it is still more expensive than just hiring b). If you decreased a) wages during their initial training to cover the costs and be able to break even with b)-like wages at the end of the training, you wouldn't be able to hire anyone as a) at all.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wool_gather 8y ago
> Unfortunately, once you train them, someone can snatch them as people in b). But this "someone" includes the current employer.
brandall10 8y ago
This is simple - pay people by the value they bring to the company upon every annual compensation review. Yes, it costs money to train people. Consequently they get paid less during that period. But once they can fly on their own, treat them as if you hired them like that.
- vetinari 8y ago
  > Consequently they get paid less during that period. But once they can fly on their own, treat them as if you hired them like that. That's too early. You made an investment, that investment has to break even. With your suggestion, it would never break even.
  - teddyh 8y ago
    But that’s not the trick. The trick should be that you train your employees how to do your business, and then you pay them more than what they’re worth to someone else. Since you’ve trained them in the ways of your business, they’re worth more than that, but only to you, and that’s the trick. Nobody else could squeeze as much value out of these people as you could (since the training is specific to what your business does), so you can afford to keep them, and the people have no monetary reason to leave.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      I never thought about this, but this definitely seemed to be the original thinking at one company I worked for. As far as I know, the company was started in 2003. The founder wrote a custom IDE, VM and compiler. This was the only company that used it. He hired a bunch of people from a well known but not well regarded private for profit college and paid them below market rates. Of course developers on this proprietary platform were completely useless anywhere else. By the time I came aboard in 2008 and the rest of the “adult supervision” - a new CTO and developers - they were in the process of transitioning to C#. Once the bottom fell out of the market with the 2008 recession, they laid off most of the developers working on the proprietary stuff who hadn’t learned C# on their own. They also forced the founder out. They kept me around because I was the only person who both knew C# and knew enough C++/MFC to maintain the old system.
      - teddyh 8y ago
        Yes, when digging a moat you have to be careful that it does not drown you as well.
freyir 8y ago
You think you’re entitled to a trained developer for the price of an inexperienced developer. That’s not going to happen. No wonder they leave.
- vetinari 8y ago
  The end result is hiring trained developers for the price of trained developers, and sending the inexperienced developers to be trained somewhere else. Where? That's their problem. See? Looking just for one's interests works both ways.
  - freyir 8y ago
    You act like you’re doing them a favor by hiring them. You’re not. You’re trying to get cheap labor, and expecting them to feel indebted to you and work at below market rate. It’s not going to happen. Pay them cheap during training. After they’re trained, pay a premium to the ones you want to keep. Let the rest go to a competitor. It’s simple. If you can’t afford that, that’s a problem with your business, not the employees.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      You have it backwards. We are not trying to have cheap labor. We are trying to have more labor. However, the experienced people are limited resource, so the next step is to find inexperienced ones and train them. However, that doesn't work that way so easily. If you train someone for 6-12 months (during that time the trainee not only isn't making you any money, but other people, who otherwise would, are not either), you are investing into these people. If they leave before you break even, you are at loss. If you would pay them market rate as soon as they finish training, you would never break even. That's why some companies insist on contract, that the trainee will stay with the company for specified time, if they take the training.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - 8y ago
fredsanford 8y ago
Your outlook is causing you to lose.
- vetinari 8y ago
  You assume too much. I take the world how it is; including human behavior. On the other hand, you assume someone owes you a training and a then immediately a wage that is the same as someone's who came with all the skills needed.

waiseristy 8y ago

I don't see why this rules out giving A.) developers who have now become B.) developers a raise to match their increased value

vetinari 8y ago
Because it is still more expensive than just hiring b). If you decreased a) wages during their initial training to cover the costs and be able to break even with b)-like wages at the end of the training, you wouldn't be able to hire anyone as a) at all.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

wool_gather 8y ago

> Unfortunately, once you train them, someone can snatch them as people in b). But this "someone" includes the current employer.

brandall10 8y ago

This is simple - pay people by the value they bring to the company upon every annual compensation review. Yes, it costs money to train people. Consequently they get paid less during that period. But once they can fly on their own, treat them as if you hired them like that.

vetinari 8y ago
> Consequently they get paid less during that period. But once they can fly on their own, treat them as if you hired them like that. That's too early. You made an investment, that investment has to break even. With your suggestion, it would never break even.
- teddyh 8y ago
  But that’s not the trick. The trick should be that you train your employees how to do your business, and then you pay them more than what they’re worth to someone else. Since you’ve trained them in the ways of your business, they’re worth more than that, but only to you, and that’s the trick. Nobody else could squeeze as much value out of these people as you could (since the training is specific to what your business does), so you can afford to keep them, and the people have no monetary reason to leave.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    I never thought about this, but this definitely seemed to be the original thinking at one company I worked for. As far as I know, the company was started in 2003. The founder wrote a custom IDE, VM and compiler. This was the only company that used it. He hired a bunch of people from a well known but not well regarded private for profit college and paid them below market rates. Of course developers on this proprietary platform were completely useless anywhere else. By the time I came aboard in 2008 and the rest of the “adult supervision” - a new CTO and developers - they were in the process of transitioning to C#. Once the bottom fell out of the market with the 2008 recession, they laid off most of the developers working on the proprietary stuff who hadn’t learned C# on their own. They also forced the founder out. They kept me around because I was the only person who both knew C# and knew enough C++/MFC to maintain the old system.
    - teddyh 8y ago
      Yes, when digging a moat you have to be careful that it does not drown you as well.

freyir 8y ago

You think you’re entitled to a trained developer for the price of an inexperienced developer. That’s not going to happen. No wonder they leave.

vetinari 8y ago
The end result is hiring trained developers for the price of trained developers, and sending the inexperienced developers to be trained somewhere else. Where? That's their problem. See? Looking just for one's interests works both ways.
- freyir 8y ago
  You act like you’re doing them a favor by hiring them. You’re not. You’re trying to get cheap labor, and expecting them to feel indebted to you and work at below market rate. It’s not going to happen. Pay them cheap during training. After they’re trained, pay a premium to the ones you want to keep. Let the rest go to a competitor. It’s simple. If you can’t afford that, that’s a problem with your business, not the employees.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    You have it backwards. We are not trying to have cheap labor. We are trying to have more labor. However, the experienced people are limited resource, so the next step is to find inexperienced ones and train them. However, that doesn't work that way so easily. If you train someone for 6-12 months (during that time the trainee not only isn't making you any money, but other people, who otherwise would, are not either), you are investing into these people. If they leave before you break even, you are at loss. If you would pay them market rate as soon as they finish training, you would never break even. That's why some companies insist on contract, that the trainee will stay with the company for specified time, if they take the training.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - 8y ago

fredsanford 8y ago

Your outlook is causing you to lose.

vetinari 8y ago
You assume too much. I take the world how it is; including human behavior. On the other hand, you assume someone owes you a training and a then immediately a wage that is the same as someone's who came with all the skills needed.